The DQ (or non-DQ) complaint thread

[Robert Fischer]

They took the IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days.

[rrpic6]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

They took the IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days.

I hit the Cross Country Daily Double DQ. Minutes after Imprimis got DQ'd, Moonlit Mission in the 9th Race at T-Down cruises to win by 5 lengths. Also gets DQ'd. At least this pads my percentage of getting taken down in my career.


RR

[SharpCat]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

They took the IMPRIMIS down in the 7th at Saratoga today??


That was criminally incompetent.


The laws of physics defy that re-rallying, after he had hung.


Horrible, disgraceful call.


I'm sorry that the got in tight in a losing effort. It was totally the fault of the clear winner. That doesn't make it grounds for a DQ.

Such a disgrace, and unfortunate blemish of maybe the nation's top meet, on one of there biggest days.

It was race 8 mate. I thought they made the correct call. Grounds for the DQ was that it cost the 4 a chance of a better placing.

[Robert Fischer]

I think some people actually believe that when a horse wins clear of a hanging rival, while putting that rival in tight, that the clear winner is 'supposed to come down'....


"he cost a placing amongst one of the runner-ups"



everyone has bad beats. Part of this game(, along with a lot of unpleasant stuff). Have to brush it off and keep fighting. The animosity and bitterness right now is at a level as to lose interest in the card, and the game. I'll probably check back at some point to see who won the Test and Travers, and I'll probably be back for Saratoga, and the Derby, but this is frustrating.

[GMB@BP]

I see people saying the bettors are being penalized for the actions of certain riders.....dont have a lot of sympathy. Riders fouling other horses has to be penalized and clearly as we have seen suspensions (taken during lessor race dates) and fines (for big time riders who make millions) dont do much to dissuade the actions.

[groupie doll]

The best horse in the race got DQed. That's about all i can say objectively since I had a WP bet on the horse that inherited the win. This is only the second time can recall being on the winning end of one of these types of DQs, and the other time oddly enough was also at the Spa.

[metro]

Thought Irad Ortiz was indifferent once he got passed in the lane, knew he wasn't going to win, didn't even file an objection.

If he hadn't taken that extra second or two to regain his mount, not look around to see if he was clear, and just finish the race, like he's done thousands of times, he gets 2nd and the winner doesn't come down.

[Robert Fischer]

Is it really the rule, that if a horse wins clear by 2.25 L and an incident occurs that doesn't affect the contention of the win, but may well have affected they order of the underneath placings, -that the winner is meant to come down?



It's possible that I didn't understand the rule and how it is meant to be interpreted.

• Imprimis did as much as possible to make a case that he had proved best, winning uncontested by 2.25L
• The incident had zero chance of affecting the 'win' placing

so, we have the stewards deciding what is more important;
clear winner? or - The order-of-finish of the runner-ups


In situations like this, I've always placed a significantly higher value on the 'win' placing, than the bottom of the ex/tri/ or super. It's a race, not a parade. The owners are racing to win the race. The win pool, the multi-race tickets, even the way most ex/tri/sprs are bet place a significantly higher value on the 'win' placing.

I've read a bunch of people seemingly mindlessly 'repeating how they've heard the rules' "it cost a horse a placing, he's gotta come down...", or seemingly misusing the word "consistency"...




-but, like I said, I could have the wrong understanding of the rule's intent.

Yes, placing more importance on the exact order of runner-ups, rather than on a winner, from an incident that had zero chance of affecting the 'win' placing, seems incredibly nonsensical,

- that doesn't mean it really isn't the intended interpretation of the rule, and that I just wasn't aware of it.

Whether I agree with rule interpretations is meaningless.

If that is the real intended interpretation, I'm surprised and disappointed, but wrong. The world is not going to adapt to you. Nobody cares. Work harder.

[GMB@BP]

The bottom line on all the recent DQ's recently may just be the Stewards have been told to clean up some of the riding tactics. Fines and suspensions have not worked so DQ's certainly will get the attention of both the barn, owner and rider.

We have been lucky that no horse in a big race has been fouled and gone down but the riding tactics in my book have made that a distinct possibility.

[RunForTheRoses]

I was doing non-horse race stuff yesterday but I did play the late P5 Saratoga. Didn't watch the 7th but had the winner. 8th I did watch on my cellphone and saw the 1 pull away at end and win easy so thought this looks good. When I looked to see the 9th checked the 8th and alas no 1 as winner.

Briefly watched replay on njbets/tvg minimized screen. Looked like 4 came out and then 1 really came over. I guess it cost 4 a placing. But you really don't know, the bumping could have riled the horse up. Brother vs brother. In a way the horse inside the 4 was also interfered with and 1 should have been placed behind that one. 1 was definitely best, would have hit a small paying pick 5 which would have been nice.

[Robert Fischer]

9th Race Saratoga (yesterday) 8/13/2020
6 Newly Minted was on her way to winning when she fouled 1 Ratajkowski.

It 'cost a placing' for the 1 Ratajkowski, who finished 5th, instead of 2nd or 3rd ...

Stewards made the correct call this time, and left the winner up.

This standard however is the opposite of what the stewards used to disqualify Imprimis (last Saturday) on 8/8/2020.



"Cost a placing" should be a disciplinary (days, fine, a stern talking to...) thing, if a clear winner commits the infraction.

If an infraction occurs earlier in the race, when the win has not been decided = that should be a disqualification. Treat early fouls as regular fouls. = They may have affected the Winning placing, or the order of underneath placings.

The Winning Placing has a greater significance.

It's a race, not a parade

[dilanesp]

I have always liked the "cost a placing" rule, for basically the same reason I like the exclusionary rule in 4th Amendment cases. I think a rule that says a horse can foul minor placing horses on its way to victory and the obly punishment is one of those phony jockey suspensiona would under-deter such conduct. By costing the owner money, the foul can get the jockey fired, which creates real deterrence.

[jay68802]

Pretty simple solution. The DQ's are for the owners and connections, and they should be. As far as the bettors are concerned, these are the ones that are harmed. In races where there is a DQ, the race should be treated as a dead heat. Leave the bettors out of decisions for other people.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Pretty simple solution. The DQ's are for the owners and connections, and they should be. As far as the bettors are concerned, these are the ones that are harmed. In races where there is a DQ, the race should be treated as a dead heat. Leave the bettors out of decisions for other people.

There's a couple of reasons racing doesn't do this.

First, a lot of horsemen bet as well. So a rule that DQ's are only for purse money can create incentives for betting coups. Indeed, there probably ARE betting coups associated with some of the doping scandals we have heard about (where the lag in the testing means horses can only ever be DQ'd for purse money and not betting money), and drug-related betting coups have been described in handicapping books dating back at least to the 1970's.

Second, at least some of the time, moving up the losing horse provides some level of recompense to the bettors of that horse. For instance, if the 5th place horse who is fouled by the winner gets moved up to 4th, at least those bettors who used that horse in the superfecta might end up cashing a ticket. If the 4th place horse is moved up to 3rd, people who bet that horse across the board might get something back.

I know it sucks when you pick the best horse and don't get paid. But that is built into the sport anyway, and really, every horseplayer knows there are actually all sorts of reasons they can be right in their opinion and not get paid. The horse gets a slow start. A dumb, impatient jockey moves a closer too early into a hot pace and gets cooked, or manages to take the horse who breaks from post position 1 wide on both turns. A horse takes a bad step.

A stewards decision is simply one of a thousand reasons why you might not get paid when you were right about the race. But if we didn't do it this way, we'd have a less honest game, which would be worse for horseplayers in the long term.

[Jeff P]

Published: November 2018
TIF Reports: Changing the Rules:
https://racingthinktank.com/reports/...changing-rules

History is littered with the cries of athletes, fans, reporters and bettors who feel a sport’s officials made a “bad call.” But whether it is real or perceived, inconsistent officiating can be maddening and has the potential to erode confidence and impact future participation.

Horse racing is no different. The virulence of opinions regarding inconsistency in the officiating of racing, not just from Saratoga’s summer meet, but across the entire North American racing landscape for a considerable period, has prompted the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation to pursue the topic.

There is an alternative to the inconsistency, and with it comes far fewer inquiries, far fewer demotions. What racing would get is greater consistency, clarity and a betting sport where the participants – be them jockeys, trainers, owners or bettors – understand what fouls warrant demotion.

The philosophy applied in North America is identified by the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (IFHA) as Category 2.

Currently, only two major racing jurisdictions in the world adjudicate races using Category 2: the United States of America and Canada.

As this paper reveals, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation recommends that North American racing jurisdictions move away from Category 2 and adopt a Category 1 interference philosophy.

Imo, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation makes a compelling case for moving away from Category 2 and adopting a Category 1 interference philosophy.


-jp

.